Aware

When the Aware saga first broke out, i must admit to thinking " these women just need to get married" or "they need a man down there to sort things out" before flipping on to more important news plaguing the unfortunate planet. Why on earth should i be concerned about a group of riled up women in a group that numbered less than 300 in membership (at that time)when thousands of poor refugees were held up in Sri Lanka facing the very possible prospect of death?

Singaporeans as I had previously argued needed a sense of proportion in a world that was radically larger and more complex. Yet when the topic became sensationalised around the subject of homosexuality it became apparent that this went beyond personal differences. Interjected and perhaps central to the discussion was a globalised moral issue transposed into our comfy island context. The battlefield was in the den of a few passionate women but the issue was global and more. Subsequently, the caricatures, the name calling, the emotions from that theatre would be invariably fixed into this feminist fall out.

Therefore, would it not be wise to adopt a calm, compassionate and understanding disposition, for there are too many emotional entanglements involved in this saga. Firstly, the media had a field day and clearly, the straits times and the new paper had their obvious favourites. And given this opportunity, the sensational coloured what was True and made for little space for the deeper issues to surface. Secondly, behind the many large sounding concepts of equality, diversity, religious plurality existed personality differences hidden behind nobler sounding facades. Lastly, given the issues at stake, unbridgeable polarities between camps gave little ground for conciliation and large swathes of people from either sides of the populace registered strong opinions even before coming to an understanding of the issue. The nature of this Aware saga is just part of a long running debate that began long ago, having had some battles (377A...etc) fought over it, that did not allow people to have many views anyway since they already had them.

My take on it? well, its the bible really. Though two issues I would want to broach on, namely

1) The secular/religious divide

There is a common belief that we must divide the secular realm from the religious one. That the organised church has no place in secular organisations. Well. perhaps organised religion should have not interfere in organised politics or NGOs, but that does not mean they do not have a right to comment on them! Also whereas we can segregate organised religion from secular organisations, we cannot separate the religion from the man. That the secular organisation is composed of religious people is a reflection of our society since most of us are religious in Singapore. We cannot suppress our moral/religious views just because we are in a secular organisation because the very nature of religion is that it enegages our whole being.

The separation of religion and secular is alot more complex in that case, since they are in effect deeply intertwined. Away from this liberal rhetoric, it just does us better to accept this fact and be wise in our dealings.

2) The church's response

The church of the Lord must know that this is a depraved world that desires depraved pleasures to puruse its depraved end to its logical conclusion. In a blinded world, we should not expect acceptance but rather malice and difficulty. We live for heaven, for Christ, for the glory of His infinite love. For that we make our stand according to the bible, and on it shall we stand or fall.

And we must respond in love like our Saviour did, in much prayer! and in stating our position kindly and gently.

At the end of the day, we got to move beyond the myopia and be aware.